Windows Operating System is 'Collapsing,'

If someone were to make linux more accessible to the average computer user I suspect Microsoft with be ruined.

I've been a Linux user for over a decade. It's easy and second nature to me. I have to admit Linux has way too many "gothas" for the would be novice. I am amazed with how easily novices get tangled-up with esoteric technical details.

That said. I've come to realize all computer platforms have a learning curve. The first PC I owned was a Mac. Since my first exposure to Windows 3.00. every time I've encountered a new platform I've stumbled upon "gothas" that even stump me. I've just come to as just the coin of the realm.

I hope one day you give Linux a try and experience the tremendous joy of Open Source computing without arbitrary limitations.

I like Linux but find its upgrade system to have a lot of faults, particularly for the novice user.

A kernel upgrade breaks numerous processes. After you have your bluetooth mouse working, your wireless network working, your ATI display working, etc., you upgrade and suddenly bluetooth doesn't work, you can't connect to the network and your display either fails totally or drops you into a horrible default display mode.

Recompiling various processes can usually restore functionality, but this should not be necessary.

If someone were to make linux more accessible to the average computer user I suspect Microsoft with be ruined.

Unless that someone becomes Microsoft. Microsoft could slash development costs of its OS by making it open-source.

It may sound strange, but it could work. The reason why uptake of open-source software is slow is due to the lack of support. If Microsoft had an open-source system, plus the support services, then it would maintain its market position.

Rather than using the OS as a cash cow, it could focus on what it is best at, providing business applications. The lack of licensing for client OS machines would free up funds for more complex software architectures and redundant systems.

There is no reason why Microsoft would lose market share, or their profit margins. If anything, it would accelerate the uptake of Windows and thus serve to drive the need for business applications.

Its just a new twist to what they've been trying to achieve for decades...Microsoft on every machine.

That's what I mean, say what you will about windows I can usually just hook up something new to the box and windows picks it right up. XP that is, I'm holding off on Vista as long as possible. The list of obsolete technologies that I've had to master and then discard is getting depressingly long. I tend to make each one last as long as possible.

I don't think Microsoft could survive if they made Windows OSS. Sure, they'd be around. But they make far more money with a closed-source Windows than Canonical does selling support. Far more.

Besides, the people who care about OSS won't switch to Windows anyway.

MS makes more money from Office than it does from Windows licensing. A change in the openness of their windows source code wouldn't break them.

It wouldn't break them, but they'd lose money. Why would a company want to lose money? They wouldn't gain anything from going to OSS, except that some FOSS developers would be happy. And even if they moved to OSS, they wouldn't use a standard license and the Stallman disciples would be unhappy. I mean, right now they dominate the Office area. OpenOffice.org is basically only used by cheapies like me. The lawyers have finally realized that WordPerfect isn't worth keeping around any more. iWork could be a competitor, but it's OS X-only and not likely to change any time soon.

@ Wheel
You should check our Ubuntu linux, very small learning curve.

Especially after 8.04 comes out on Thursday. Then, you can just install it and uninstall it like any other Windows program (it's still a separate OS though).

sounds interesting, is it free?

Not only is it free as in money, it is free to let you do whatever you want with it.

sounds interesting, is it free?

Yes it is, and I highly recommend it for anyone worried about the complexities of keeping up with Linux installations.

It has a really painless install procedure, and I almost never have issues with Ubuntu. It's the most user-friendly version of Linux I've seen so far.

Actually, the one that is REALLY painless is Linux Mint since it preinstalls all the codecs and drivers. But it doesn't have Wubi support yet, so I can't recommend it as the easiest for new guys.

cool, I'm clipping this thread to my clippings.

I'm holding off on Vista as long as possible.

Same here. A couple of months ago, my sister's hard drive crashed (she has a Dell laptop). She didn't want to get a new computer because all the new computers have Vista on them. So she got a new hard drive instead.

The list of obsolete technologies that I've had to master and then discard is getting depressingly long.

True dat!

It wouldn't break them, but they'd lose money. Why would a company want to lose money?

Well, they might find that it would save them money and produce a more stable product, in the long run. I don't think they'll do it, but they could re-task and/or lay off a number of Windows developers if the product became community-supported.

Also, making it open source does not necessarily mean it needs to be free. MS could open up the source code of the OS, but still charge for the product a la Apple. Darwin is open, but OSX ain't free!

t wouldn't break them, but they'd lose money. Why would a company want to lose money? They wouldn't gain anything from going to OSS, except that some FOSS developers would be happy.

In the long run, they would be losing money due to people switching platforms anyway. This would have the knock-on effect of changing business applications people are prepared to use.

At least this way, they can let the community focus on refining Windows, rather than pumping cash in to create a new ground-breaking system every few years. People would be much happier patching their existing systems. For the 'official' release, Microsoft can select the code it is happiest with and bundle that to the customer.

It also means that they would retain their market spaces in terms of server editions and back-end systems such as MOSS, SQL and Exchange, etc.

They will, of course, milk the product to the end, but, when the tide is turning, I would expect the client version of Windows to be release as open-source and free. This will provide very deep-market penetration and keep Microsoft in a dominant position for at least the two to three decades. Then they will probably repeat the model with some of their backend stuff and obtain their cashflow from elsewhere.

I'm not expecting MS to go anywhere soon, but they will lose significant market share if they don't adapt.